Open Access (was: Concrete Ties)

James Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> > 
> > The technical issues are really quite far down the list. Open access
> > only began officially March of this year and they have yet to settle
> > all the licensing/scheduling/contracting/pricing/tracking issues (which
> > is why I don't think open access is going to work any better there than it
> > does here for Amtrak).
> 
> European railroads were never prevented from running through trains
> prior to open access, so it doesn't explain why it was done so rarely. 
> Historically, it should have been no different than North American
> railroads interchanging through trains from one railroad to another. 

Apparently it is much different, at least according to every paper I've 
seen written about it.

Unlike the US, the European rail operators are/were not private corporations
but public-private entities which means they had political priorities 
other than running long-distance freight trains. As well, they often had no 
financial incentive to allow through trains. For instance, why would SNCF 
voluntarily relinquish valuable train slots through the Chunnel to 
a 3rd party? Then there are the powerful labor unions, which didn't like
privatization (nor did many political parties) and especially didn't like
the idea of private competitors operating in their territory, possibly 
paying lower wages and benefits. More importantly, though, the US has had 
the STB and other agencies regulating the railroad industry for a long time
to prevent anti-competitive behavior.